Don Cooley wrote:

> Jose
>
> Do you mean using the:
>
> /z:1 will give you   512K clusters (no matter how big the drive)
> /z:2 will give you 1020K clusters
> /z:4 will give you 2048K clusters
>
> when you format the drive?

I'm sorry, yes at format type C:\>format c: /s  /z:1 or whatever.

> I looked in the Win 98 Resource Kit and couldn't find it.  Must be one of
> those "hidden" things.

Well it was hidden in 95B so it could very well be the same in 98 but I don't
know.

> Do you have any idea what would be the most efficient and fastest?  I would
> think the lower the number the more of the drive that is used but it would
> slow down the drive as it is skipping all over to put together small
> clusters.

Most efficient for what I guess. I mean it depends on what you want to load and
the amount of room you want to have and how fast your CPU and drive are.

I have a 6.4G with 4K clusters nice and fast, my laptop has got a 1.2G with 2K
clusters, print server with a 2G drive partitioned in two 1G partitions the
first one 2K cluster for the OS and programs, the second with 4K clusters set
as the cache for my burner and they all run flawlessly (knocking on wood).

On the other hand, I've setup a 640Mb with 512K clusters and my son wants to
kill me every time he has to defrag or the system crashes and it checks the
drive. That's when you really notice the slow down, it takes forever but you
can load a lot of stuff. Norton's Speed disk is a lot faster though so I'll
live, also it depends on how fast the system is, he had a 486. Now with a P60
is not as bad.

HTH

Jose